Indian ID – the response.
Thanks for the tuition Lars Glerup (see OBA 67 letters “Indian ID”). The cart of assertion ...appears to be, well before the intended horse of fact. The captions ‘Indian 29 Scout’, are in fact correct and are indeed the writer’s intent. However, I have omitted, during a process of transcription, to convey a ‘question mark’ and attach it to the Indian ‘29 Scout captions. They appear in my draft copy, pen to paper scribblings, but not in text. My apologies for this inadvertent oversight.
The ‘29 Indian Scout is the precursor, to the acquisition of the bike pictured. Moreover, the article’s primary intent, is to herald the unlikely odds of a separately rare acquisition, and how it came about ...which ultimately, the failed ‘29 Scout negotiation led to. The article is not, an Indian ‘make and model’ purist’s account, nor was it intended to be a ‘numbers man’ approach.
However, if the writer’s sole intent was to purport the differences between a ‘29 and ‘31 Scout, he would strongly emphasise the following... A. The most prominent ‘31 difference, compared to a ‘29 is, the rear wheel detachment, via a rear hinged guard, whilst on the rear stand. B. Cross bar handlebar was adopted for all models of Indian Motorcycles in 1931, and was most definitely ...’not only for the ‘31 scout’. C. The ‘31 scout boasted, new heavier gauge spokes
and nipples with cadmium plating and; D. a new horn of the high frequency vibrator type, with exclusive Indian head design front, created for Indian, by Harry Dunn, the acclaimed period artist, who earlier, painted many battle scenes in France and; E. a new foot activated ‘town and country’ larger exhaust design, also on 74 models (tail fin and cut out). F. A centre mounted headlamp allowing for easier and more accurate aiming of the headlamp range, by means of a faster ‘single nut’ loosening process. G. A new Auto Light Electric Company Generator,
being more durable with greater output. H. New tank transfer I. Where Nickle plating was found on the ‘29
...chrome plating was found on the 1931 scout. J. There were also differences found in ‘31 scout
related wiring. K. Of course, crankcase venting had also changed, and relocated to the r/h side, top portion, of the timing cover. Again, to reiterate, the writer’s intent was indeed to advocate the ‘contextual’ importance of the ‘Indian ‘29 project and what ensued from its failed negotiation, and how this facilitated the procurement of a rare piece of history. Moreover, as the article infers, the ‘29 Indian project and the bike pictured, are not the same bikes. The ‘29 Indian project did not become the bike you see pictured. Perhaps an ensuing ‘?’ after the ‘title’ may have been in order, but that too, may well of created ‘structural ambiguity’ and feisty debate. Thank you Lars for your vibrant appraisal. Danny Marks Via email